4 ms·

> Of course, criminal process has a higher proof bar and requires a public prosecutor to care enough to do something Wage theft really should be a strict liabi

> Of course, criminal process has a higher proof bar and requires a public prosecutor to care enough to do something Wage theft really should be a strict liability crime -- only proof necessary to convict is that it happened, not that it was intended.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Wage theft really should be a strict liability crime -- only proof necessary to convict is that it happened, not that it was intended. It would still take a public prosecutor to care, and the failure to pay as required is already a strict-liability tort. Not sure that enabling discretionary criminal punishment of acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent in this domain helps anyone.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  > acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent This point we disagree on. Wage theft is almost always intentional, always reckless, and should be considered negligent as a default. Wage theft is one of the places where I am okay with guilty until proven innocent because of the huge power disparity between the affected parties.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
It should be and is in terms of civil law. It isnt and shouldn't be in terms of criminal law. Someone drops a zero on you paycheck, you can sue them civially simply because it happened. However, a simple mistake should not be a felony when there is already a path to redress accidental damages.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Wage theft is the larger category of theft. Most goes unaddressed, but you suggest the mechanism is fine
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    No, I think the mechanism is utterly broken. I just dont think the severity of charges are the bottleneck in the problem. People should be encouraged to file, and the courts should have hearing within a reasonable timeframe, and do so efficiently. The bottleneck is that the state does a terrible job of handling claims. califonia has an average wait time of 505 days for a hearing for people who dont drop or settle their claim. Under these conditions, most people will continue to not file claims. Especially when only 1 in 7 people that win in court actually get paid. It doesn't help that the california government is grossly inefficient. The labor commission budget is >160 million, and issues ~50 million in judgements, of which only ~20% actually get paid. So we are talking about a program that costs 1600% more to run than the judgements it hands out. How's that for depressing. https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/09/california-wage-theft-cases/ https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/09/california-...
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      > The bottleneck is that the state does a terrible job of handling claims. That's not the only bottleneck. You also need to have the time and resources to pursue this, and it has to be worth your time. If your employer stole $500 from you, but it will cost you $1000 to get those wages back, it's not worth pursuing it in court. And the cost can be in terms of time that you spend on it. A lot of wage theft is very small amounts that are individually rarely worth pursuing. They also waste a lot of government resources too, for the same reason. So maybe individual wage theft shouldn't be a strict liability crime, but at some level, it should rise to criminal charges being brought against the management of the company. If a bunch of your employees have reported wage theft against you, and all you have to do is potentially pay them back just what you stole (as you point out, it's not even a given you'd have to pay it back) -- why would you _not_ skim a bit of your employees wages? Add in a very long statute of limitations for wage theft (say 10 years at a minimum) and the chance for management to spend 5-10 years in the clink, I suspect wage theft will decrease quite a bit.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Wage theft really should be a strict liability crime -- only proof necessary to convict is that it happened, not that it was intended. It would still take a public prosecutor to care, and the failure to pay as required is already a strict-liability tort. Not sure that enabling discretionary criminal punishment of acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent in this domain helps anyone.

genocidicbunny 3y ago
> acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent This point we disagree on. Wage theft is almost always intentional, always reckless, and should be considered negligent as a default. Wage theft is one of the places where I am okay with guilty until proven innocent because of the huge power disparity between the affected parties.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

It should be and is in terms of civil law. It isnt and shouldn't be in terms of criminal law. Someone drops a zero on you paycheck, you can sue them civially simply because it happened. However, a simple mistake should not be a felony when there is already a path to redress accidental damages.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
Wage theft is the larger category of theft. Most goes unaddressed, but you suggest the mechanism is fine
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  No, I think the mechanism is utterly broken. I just dont think the severity of charges are the bottleneck in the problem. People should be encouraged to file, and the courts should have hearing within a reasonable timeframe, and do so efficiently. The bottleneck is that the state does a terrible job of handling claims. califonia has an average wait time of 505 days for a hearing for people who dont drop or settle their claim. Under these conditions, most people will continue to not file claims. Especially when only 1 in 7 people that win in court actually get paid. It doesn't help that the california government is grossly inefficient. The labor commission budget is >160 million, and issues ~50 million in judgements, of which only ~20% actually get paid. So we are talking about a program that costs 1600% more to run than the judgements it hands out. How's that for depressing. https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/09/california-wage-theft-cases/ https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/09/california-...
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    > The bottleneck is that the state does a terrible job of handling claims. That's not the only bottleneck. You also need to have the time and resources to pursue this, and it has to be worth your time. If your employer stole $500 from you, but it will cost you $1000 to get those wages back, it's not worth pursuing it in court. And the cost can be in terms of time that you spend on it. A lot of wage theft is very small amounts that are individually rarely worth pursuing. They also waste a lot of government resources too, for the same reason. So maybe individual wage theft shouldn't be a strict liability crime, but at some level, it should rise to criminal charges being brought against the management of the company. If a bunch of your employees have reported wage theft against you, and all you have to do is potentially pay them back just what you stole (as you point out, it's not even a given you'd have to pay it back) -- why would you _not_ skim a bit of your employees wages? Add in a very long statute of limitations for wage theft (say 10 years at a minimum) and the chance for management to spend 5-10 years in the clink, I suspect wage theft will decrease quite a bit.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago